Supreme Court Three Guilty Of Assault With Intent... (Press, 25 August 1961)

In a Supreme Court case that concluded on 25 August 1961, three young men were found guilty of assaulting Vincent Thomas Revell with intent to rob him, although they were acquitted of the more serious charge of robbery. The accused are Peter Charles Yeatman, 23, Thomas Ian McGlinchy, also 23, and William Alexander Gill, 26. The incidents took place on a remote section of Cashmere Road near Princess Margaret Hospital on 15 July. The jury deliberated for approximately 3 hours and 40 minutes before reaching a verdict. They did not need to consider a verdict on the charge of assault due to their decision on the lesser charge. Mr Justice Richmond remanded the three men in custody until 31 August for sentencing. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that suggested the accused had planned to attack Revell after picking him up from Valley Inn Hotel. Mr C. M. Roper, representing the Crown, highlighted inconsistencies in the accused's explanation for driving Revell to the secluded area. He noted that Revell was positioned in the back seat between Yeatman and Gill when the alleged assault occurred. Roper argued that the three accused's quick departure from the scene indicated their intent to conceal their actions. Evidence was presented that Revell sustained injuries including abrasions, bruises, and a broken tooth during the incident. Defence attorney Mr P. G. S. Penlington argued that there was no evidence money was taken from Revell, who had been drinking and was uncertain about how much cash he had on him at the time. The defence suggested that the lack of any clear motive for robbery and the digital uncertainty surrounding Revell’s account owing to his intoxication should lead the jury to acquit the accused. Mr R. G. Blunt, representing Gill, contended that the change of drivers was due to Yeatman’s erratic driving rather than any intent to rob or assault. He further argued that if the jury had any doubt about Revell's alleged advances towards Yeatman leading to the altercation, they must find the defendants not guilty. Defence counsel Mr de Goldi also pointed to previous interactions between Revell and Yeatman, suggesting that accusations of indecency prompted the aggressive actions. He maintained that Revell’s injuries were not indicative of a beating, implying they were consistent with being forcibly removed from the vehicle. In summary, the jury found the three men guilty of the lesser charge of assault with intent to rob after assessing the prosecution's arguments against the defence's claims of lack of motive and evidence. The case highlights complex dynamics and interpretations of intent and personal conduct in a tense situation.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand